Karin Rasmussen

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding his crop insurance claims for Red Spring Wheat and Soybeans following a season with excessive rainfall and severe weed conditions.

Agricorp had offered a reduced payout for the wheat based on comparative yields and denied the soybean claim entirely due to crop abandonment and destruction of evidence.

The Tribunal found that while excessive rainfall was an insurable peril, the appellant's losses were largely due to uninsurable factors including poor farm management and weed pressure.

The Tribunal upheld Agricorp's calculation for the wheat loss and dismissed the soybean claim.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of his claim for his 2006 white kidney bean crop.

Agricorp argued the appellant breached his crop insurance contract by failing to harvest the crop, attributing the loss to inadequate farm practices rather than an insured peril.

The Tribunal found that the appellant used good farm management practices and that excessive rain and wet field conditions made harvesting impractical.

The Tribunal concluded that the excess rain constituted an insurable peril and ordered Agricorp to pay the full value of the claim.

The grievor filed a grievance regarding a job competition for a non-bargaining unit position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board, arguing that the issues arose when the grievor was a bargaining unit member.

The Board agreed, finding that the grievance related to a process commenced when the grievor was excluded from recourse under the Public Service Act.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The union filed individual and policy grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by changing an employee's anniversary date upon promotion.

The employer argued that its Manual of Administration defined a promotional increase in a way that justified the change, and sought to introduce evidence of past practice.

The arbitrator excluded the past practice evidence because the employer failed to provide particulars as previously ordered.

On the merits, the arbitrator found the collective agreement clearly and unambiguously allowed an employee in the grievor's circumstances to retain their pre-promotion anniversary date.

The grievances were allowed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Divisional Court.

The appeal was heard together with a companion appeal involving the City of Toronto and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

For the reasons provided in the companion appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal with costs.